![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
@ Albertatiran: If you want to shorten this article, you shouldn't delete the well sourced long standing information of this article, and replace them with contents from other articles, like what you did here. Instead you should summarize the existing information.
Also I noticed that you deleted some attributions (according to ...), which are needed for controversial contents. You should fix them yourself.
Also when you want to rearrange or clarify a paragraph, you cannot attribute the information of one source to another like what you might have done here.
If you need more information ask the editors who are more experienced like Mhhossein. Ghazaalch ( talk) 15:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@
El C,
Al Ameer son,
Mhhossein,
HistoryofIran,
Toddy1,
ParthikS8,
Sa.vakilian,
Ahendra,
M.Nadian, and
Apaugasma: I would ask you to please look into the edit war started by
Ghazaalch. Without any exceptions, I've improved the flow and writing of the article (e.g.,
[1]), added new sources (e.g.,
[2]), removed udue weight or shortened verbose content (e.g.,
[3]), filled in the gaps within the narrative (e.g.,
[4]), corrected misrperesentations of the source (e.g.,
[5]), removed repeated or rearranged misplaced content (e.g.,
[6]), removed content that didn't exist in the source (like
[7] or
[8]).
Ghazaalch has now reverted the article, even though I had posted my proposed edits on the talk page long ago and waited for feedback before editing the article. Thank you for your help.
Albertatiran (
talk)
16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The point of the reverts was that the long-standing information should be the base of your work not the copy-pasted ones. So I'd prefer to start with the current version. But you can use some of the reverted information which are not problematic. Also you can merge the Advent of Kharijites with one of its adjacent sections, Battle of Siffin or Arbitration. Ghazaalch ( talk) 15:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Salam, Mhhossein, and thanks for the feedback. Here are my thoughts:
References
Excuse me if I am incorrect, but "religius" should be changed to religious in the third sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:fb23:6300:e1aa:87ad:cb6:d8d5 ( talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I am going to work on this article to improve it to a good article. Any suggestion? Ghazaalch ( talk) 18:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian, Mhhossein, Alivardi, and Vice regent: Hello. I have been working on this article for a while and am going to nominate it for a good article. Is there anything I could do before nomination? Ghazaalch ( talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein: Every thing has been changed since 2015. I omitted or replaced all unreliable information and could say that it is a new article now. So I do not think it has the previous issues now. Ghazaalch ( talk) 09:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I changed the contents in the infobox a little bit, but the new information are hidden.(can't be seen by readers) Do you know what is the problem? Ghazaalch ( talk) 09:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mhhossein. The following is hidden now:
|Titles: Amir al-Mu'minin, Abu Turab, Haydar, Asadullah, Al-Murtadha, Abu al-Hasan.
Ghazaalch ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mhhossein. Well done:) Ghazaalch ( talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello AhmadLX. You did a great job reviewing Hasan ibn Ali, which was kind of writing the article from the beginning. I am wondering if you have the time to review this article too? If it is too much, I can start preparing Husayn ibn Ali for review first. Ghazaalch ( talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you AhmadLX. I used the sources you mentioned above, including your translation of Wellhausen's book. I couldn't find THE SIFFIN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT as I mentioned before. Ghazaalch ( talk) 07:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you AhmadLX I cannot reach the Site. Ghazaalch ( talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello AhmadLX. Can you take another look at the article and see if we can nominate it now? Ghazaalch ( talk) 14:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Albertatiran: Thanks to Apaugasma I saw your proposals below in the Caliphat section. The article might have the problems you mentioned but since I am not the reviewer, I'd prefer to listen to those who are more experienced than me and you in this field, like AhmadLX and Sa.vakilian. AhmadLx has already made some suggestions that I tried to address them, except for the Historiography section which still has the problem he mentioned. So as Mhhossein said bellow, the best thing to do right now is to improve this article to a good article. You have already been of good help summarizing this article and you could continue with it as long as you don't change or remove the essential content of it. (I have already summarized it so be careful not to trim it much). You can also work on Historiography section under Ahmad's revision, if you want to help. Ghazaalch ( talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Albertatiran. Do you have the time to improve the Historiography section too, using some other sources and viewpoints? Then we can ask @AhmadLX to review the article and let us know what else should be done. Ghazaalch ( talk) 09:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ghazaalch! What do you have in mind for Historiography? I can see that it's mentioned in the exchanges above but that's also somewhat vague to me. Thanks! Albertatiran ( talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Albertatiran. I think AhmadLX want to say that Madelung's deviation from the academic consensus on the unreliability of hadith literature
has been justified in the third paragraph of the Historiography where it reads: Wilferd Madelung has rejected the stance of indiscriminately dismissing everything not included in "early sources" and in this approach tendentiousness alone is no evidence for late origin. According to him, Caetani's approach is inconsistent. Madelung and some later historians do not reject the narrations which have been compiled in later periods and try to judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures.[195]
.
I think AhmadLX want to say that Madelung's view has been given too much weight and it should be balanced using some other sources and viewpoints.
AhmadLX himself might want to clarify a little or introduce some other sources for this purpose.
Ghazaalch (
talk)
17:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
By the way, AhmadLx has been of great help reviewing Hasan ibn Ali, until I could nominate it. Battle of Karbala is another article that has been improved to a Good article by AhmadLX and could be good example for our work here. Ghazaalch ( talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma, Mhhossein, Al Ameer son, HistoryofIran, Ghazaalch, Toddy1, AhmadLX, Vice regent, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, and M.Nadian: Hi! I'd like to gauge your views about the following minor changes to Death and Burial. If unopposed, I'd hope to implement them by next Friday. Thank you in advance! Albertatiran ( talk) 08:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
After consulting the given source (Veccia Vaglieri's Ibn Muldjam article), a couple of sentences in this section can be improved in my view.
CURRENT: According to some narrations Ali knew, or had been informed by Muhammad that his beard would stain with the blood of his forehead. It is mainly emphasized in Shia sources that Ali, despite being aware of his fate, and in spite of knowing that ibn Muljam would be his killer, did not take any action against ibn Muljam becaus he could not kill someone who has not killed him yet.
PROPOSED: According to some narrations, Ali had long known about his fate, either by his own premonition or through Muhammad, who had told Ali that his beard would be stained with the blood of his head. It is emphasized mainly in Shia sources that Ali, despite being aware of his fate at the hands of Ibn Muljam, did not take any action against him because, in Ali's words, "Would you kill one who has not yet killed me?" Albertatiran ( talk) 08:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't see much difference between these two paragraphs. M.Nadian ( talk) 10:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems that the proposal (largely correcting the English and copy editing and adding new bits of info from the source) is seen as uncontroversial. I've implemneted the proposed edits and did some more copy editing on this section. Albertatiran ( talk) 08:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Recently, Ishan87 has begun going over my recent contributions on Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation, e.g., my recent edits discussed in Talk:Ali#Proposed_changes_to_Death_and_Burial. This can be traced back to a dispute Talk:Muhammad's children (which makes for an interesting read). Albertatiran ( talk) 19:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
False accusations. As I explained in the other talk page. I did gave explanations and valid reasons to change your edits, and none of them had anything to do with your actions in any other pages. Ishan87 ( talk) 19:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Ishan87, what is your problem with this edit? Are you see the "Proposed changes to Death and Burial" or not? M.Nadian ( talk) 06:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Ali's appearance is described as being bald, heavy built, short legged, with broad shoulders, a hairy body, a long white beard; and affected by a form of eye inflammation. In manner, it is said that he was rough, brusque, and unsociable."
This line needs changing as its portraying a false image of a man who was described to be handsome, gentle,generous, compassionate,pure, one who emanated wisdom, faith and valor,. A man raised by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a man who was the spiritual successor of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Ali Ibn Abu Talib is a man who's even spoken by the United nationn.
UN Secretariat, the Committee of Human Rights in New York under the chairmanship of the Secretary General Kofi Annan issued, in 2002 A.D., this historic resolution:
The Caliph Ali Bin Abi Talib is considered the fairest governor who appeared during human history (After the Prophet Muhammed). The United Nations has advised Arab countries to take Imam Ali bin Abi Talib as an example in establishing a regime based on justice and democracy and encouraging knowledge.
^ This was stated by the United Nations, someone clearly wants to bring about a negative image of Caliph Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib, some people in the muslim world try there level best to undervalue this holy figure. SHG98 ( talk) 23:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Ghazaalch: Hi! Ali#Succession_to_Muhammad currently offers a good in-depth analysis of the Saqifah event and its aftermath but is almost void of any historical details. I've added this analysis to Succession_to_Muhammad#Saqifah where an in-depth analysis like this seems more appropriate. Instead, the text below summarizes (most of) the existing analysis and adds a short account of the Saqifah from standard sources. Are you ok with me replacing the current text with the proposal below? Albertatiran ( talk) 08:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
While Ali was preparing Muhammad's body for burial, [1] a group of the Ansar (Medinan natives, lit. 'helpers') gathered at Saqifah with the deliberate exclusion of the Muhajirun ( lit. 'migrants'), possibly with the intention of regaining control over their city after Muhammad's death, as suggested by Madelung. [2] Upon learning about this, Abu Bakr and Umar, both senior companions of Muhammad, rushed to join the gathering and were likely the only representatives of the Muhajirun at Saqifah, alongside Abu Ubaidah. [3] Those present at Saqifah appointed Abu Bakr as Muhammad's successor after a heated debate that is said to have become violent. [4]
There is some evidence that the case of Ali for the caliphate was brought up at Saqifah [5] and Madelung partly attributes the so-called falta ( lit. 'hasty decision') at Saqifah to the very fear that the Ansar might decide to rally behind his case. [6] According to Madelung, Abu Bakr was well aware that a broad council ( shura), in which Ali was to be an option, would have led to the election of Ali: [7] The Ansar would have likely supported Ali because of his family ties with them, and the same arguments that favored Abu Bakr over the Ansar (kinship, service to Islam, etc.) would have arguably favored Ali over Abu Bakr. [8] Madelung suggests that the straightforward logic of dynastic succession would have prevailed in a general shura. [9] Veccia Vaglieri, on the other hand, believes that Ali, just over thirty years old at the time, stood no chance in view of Arabs' (pre-Islamic) tradition of choosing their leaders from the elders. [10]
After Saqifah, Omar reportedly dominated the streets of Medina with the help of the Aslam and Aws tribes, [11] and the caliphate of Abu Bakr was met with little resistance. [12] Ali and his supporters, however, initially refused to acknowledge Abu Bakr's authority, claiming that Muhammad had earlier designated him as the successor. [13] There are Sunni and Shia reports that Umar led an armed mob to Ali's house to secure his pledge, which led to a violent confrontation. [14] To force Ali into line, Abu Bakr later placed a boycott on Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hashim, [15] which gradually led Ali's supporters to accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr. [16]
For his part, Ali is said to have turned down proposals to forcefully pursue his claims to the caliphate, [17] including one from Abu Sufyan. [18] Ali is also known to have prevented the circulation of a poem that advanced Ali's claim to the caliphate, commenting that the welfare of Islam was dearer to him than anything else. [19] Some six months after Muhammad's death, Ali pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr when his wife, Fatima, died. [20] Shia alleges that her death was a result of the injuries suffered in an earlier violent attack on Ali's house led by Omar. [21] It has been suggested that Ali relinquished his claims to the caliphate for the sake of the unity of Islam, when it became clear that Muslims did not broadly support his cause. [22] Nevertheless, according to Madelung, Ali unequivocally viewed himself as the most qualified person to lead after Muhammad by virtue of his merits and his kinship with Muhammad. [23] Mavani adds that Ali considered himself as the designated successor to Muhammad through a divine decree at the Event of the Ghadir Khumm. [24]
The conflicts after the death of Muhammad are considered the roots of the current division among Muslims. [25] Those who had accepted Abu Bakr's caliphate later became the Sunni, while the supporters of Ali's right to the caliphate eventually became the Shia. [26]
Hello Albertatiran. It is difficult to decide. The first paragraph of your proposed text presents a detailed view of Madelung about the possibly intention of Ansar which is not necessary, especially when it is not clear how a group of Ansar were dominated by three of Muhajirun. So we would need more explanation and more details here which is too much for this article. Therefore the existing information of the article is better and more summarized in my view. The information of the first part of the second paragraph again seems to be the especial view of Madelung and is not so famous to be mentioned in this article. The same thing can be said about the poem that advanced Ali's claim, etc. In the forth paragraph you wrote "according to Madelung, Ali unequivocally viewed himself as the most qualified...", while the sources you presented for the sentence show that it is not the view of Madelung alone. It is according to Madelung, Momen, Mavani and maybe some others. In the existing article we read "Madelung considers the main Shia claims, to be Ali's own view, because Ali considered himself ...", which seems more correct. Again you wrote "Mavani adds that Ali considered himself ....", while it is not the view of Mavani alone. Ghazaalch ( talk) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Ansar would have supported the caliphate of Ali because of his family ties with them, because as far as I know Ali had no family ties with Ansar. Ghazaalch ( talk) 10:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Ghazaalch: Could you also help me with your feedback on this section? (Of course, everyone is also welcome to join the discussion.) The current text is repeated below for convenience.
At the beginning of Abu Bakr's caliphate, there was a controversy about Muhammad's endowment to his daughter, especially the oasis of Fadak, between Fatima and Ali on one side and Abu Bakr on the other side. Fatima asked Abu Bakr to turn over their property, the lands of Fadak and Khaybar, but Abu Bakr refused and told her that "The Messenger of God has said: We do not have heirs, whatever we leave is alms." Fatima became angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died. [1] According to a narration by ibn Sa'd, Ali countered Abu Bakr by quoting some verses of the Qur'an, according which "Solomon became David's heir" (Qur'an 27:16) and "Zachariah said [in his prayer: give me a next-of-kin] who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob". (Qur'an 19:6). [a] [2] According to some sources, Ali did not give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until some time after the death of his wife, Fatima, in the year 633. [3] According to Tabari, a group of Abu Bakr's opponents, including Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, gathered at Fatima's house. To make them come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar threatened to set the house on fire and pulled them out. [4] While al-Baladhuri states that the altercation never became violent and ended with Ali's compliance, [5] some traditions add that Umar and his supporters forcibly entered the house, resulting in Fatima's miscarriage of their unborn son Muhsin. [6] Professor Coeli Fitzpatrick surmises that the story of the altercation reflects the political agendas of the period and should therefore be treated with caution. [7]
Ali lived an isolated life during Abu Bakr's period and was mainly engaged in religious affairs, devoting himself to studying and teaching the Quran. He also advised Abu Bakr and Umar on government matters. [8] According to Ismail Poonawala, the first historically compiled Quran is attributed to Ali. Ali's knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah would help the previous caliphs in religious matters. [3] [9] The order of Qur'an, compiled be Ali, reportedly differed from that which was gathered later during the Uthmanic era. This book was rejected by several people when he showed it to them. Despite this, Ali made no resistance against the standardised mus'haf. [10]
A couple of comments about it:
With these comments in mind, here is the revised text that rewords and expands the current text in some places. Please let me know what your comments (if any) are. Thanks! Albertatiran ( talk) 08:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The beginning of Abu Bakr's caliphate was marked by controversy surrounding Muhammad's land endowments to his daughter, Fatima, the wife of Ali. [6] She requested Abu Bakr to return her property, the lands of Fadak and her share in Khaybar, which Abu Bakr refused, saying that Muhammad had told him, "We [the prophets] do not have heirs, whatever we leave is alms." [11] After this exchange, Fatima is said to have remained angry with Abu Bakr until her death, within a few months of Muhammad's death. [12] [13] Abu Bakr was initially the sole witness to this statement, which later became known as the hadith of Muhammad's inheritance. [14] [15] [16] In effect, Abu Bakr's decree disinherited Muhammad's family and brought them to rely on general alms which Muhammad had forbidden for them in his lifetime. [17] In connection to this dispute, Ibn Sa'd relates that Ali countered Abu Bakr's claim by quoting parts of verse 27:16 of the Qur'an, " Solomon became David's heir," and verse 19:6, "Zechariah said [in his prayer: grant me a next-of-kin] who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob." [18] Explaining this ostensible conflict between the Qur'an and Abu Bakr's hadith presented a challenge for Sunni authors. [19]
The death of Fatima, the wife of Ali, was another controversial incident in this period. There is strong evidence that shortly after the appointment of Abu Bakr as caliph, Umar led an armed mob to Ali's house and threatened to set it on fire if Ali and the supporters of his caliphate, who had gathered there in solidarity, would not pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr. [20] [21] [6] [22] The scene soon grew violent and, in particular, Zubayr was disarmed and carried away. [20] [23] The armed mob later retreated after Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, loudly admonished them. [21] [24] It is widely believed that Ali withheld his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until after the death of Fatima, within six months of Muhammad's death. [25] [26] In particular, Shia and some early Sunni sources allege a final and more violent raid to secure Ali's oath, also led by Umar, in which Fatima suffered injuries that shortly led to her miscarriage and death. [6] [27] [28] In contrast, the Sunni historian al-Baladhuri writes that the altercations never became violent and ended with Ali's compliance. [5] Fitzpatrick surmises that the story of the altercation reflects the political agendas of the period and should therefore be treated with caution. [7] Veccia Vaglieri, however, maintains that the Shia account is based on facts, even if it has been later extended by invented details. [29]
In sharp contrast with Muhammad's lifetime, [13] [30] Ali retired from the public life during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (and later, Umar and Uthman) and mainly engaged himself with religious affairs, devoting his time to the study and teaching of the Quran. [31] This change in Ali's attitude has been described as a silent censure of the first three caliphs. [13] Ali is said to have advised Abu Bakr and Umar on government and religious matters, [31] [26] [9] though the mutual distrust and personal animosity of Ali with Abu Bakr and Umar is also well-documented. [32] [33] Their differences were epitomized during the proceedings of the electoral council in 644 where Ali refused to be bound by the precedence of the first two caliphs. [30] [13]
References
Iranica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Some fairly reasonable edits and corrections are proposed below. They are unlikely to be controversial but your feedback is very welcome. The current text appears below for convenience.
Ali retired from public life during Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, however, he accepted their rule and even gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also was consulted in matters of state. [1] According to Vaglieri, however, while it is probable that Umar asked Ali's advice on legal issues, due to his great knowledge of Qur'an and Sunnah, it is not certain whether his advice was accepted on political matters. As an example, al-Baladhuri mentions Ali's view on Diwani revenue, which was opposite to that of Umar. Since, Ali believed the whole income should be distributed, without holding anything in stock. During the Caliphate of Umar (and Uthman) Ali held no position, except, according to Tabari, the lieutenancy of Madina, during Umar's journey to Syria and Palestine. [2] During the caliphate of Umar, Ali claimed Fatima's paternal inheritance again; But Umar's answer was the same as Abu Bakr's. However, Umar agreed to return some of the property of Medina (which was considered part of Fatima's inheritance) to the sons of Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, who represented Banu Hashim; But the property of Fadak and Khybar remained as state property and was not returned to Banu Hashim. [3]
Ali was one of the electoral council to choose the third caliph which was appointed by Umar. Although Ali was one of the two major candidates, the council was inclined against him. Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, who were cousins, were naturally inclined to support Uthman, who was Abdur Rahman's brother-in-law. In addition, Umar gave the deciding vote to Abdur Rahman, who offered the caliphate to Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Qur'an, the Sunnah ( the example set by Muhammad), and the precedents established by the first two caliphs. Ali rejected the third condition while Uthman accepted it. According to ibn Abi al-Hadid's Comments on the Peak of Eloquence, Ali insisted on his prominence there, but most of the electors supported Uthman and Ali was reluctantly urged to accept him. [4]
According to Madelung, Ali could not have hoped to become the caliph after Umar, on the basis of his kinship with Muhammad; Because the Quraysh did not support the accumulation of prophethood and caliphate in one clan. He believes that it was not "Abu Bakr's and Umar's coup" at Saqifah which prevented Ali from becoming caliph, but it stems from the deep jealousy of the Quraysh toward Ali. Therefore, Madelung says, Ali's only chance to participate in the affairs of the Muslims could be his full participation in the council, which was founded by Umar. Ibn Abbas narrates that Umar once told him that Ali was in fact the most worthy person to succeed Muhammad, but we were afraid of him for two reasons. When ibn Abbas eagerly asks Umar about these reasons, Umar replied that the first is his youth and the second is Ali's great interest in the Banu Hashim family. In his address, Umar refers to his belief in the formation of the council as the basis for appointing a caliph, and in practice, from now on, denounces any appointment of a caliph without consultation. Thus, by doing so, the caliphate could not be monopolized by certain clan and belonged to all the Quraysh. [5]
A few comments about the current text above:
What follows is an attempt to address these comments.
Ali remained withdrawn from public affairs during the caliphate of Umar, [6] though Nasr and coauthor write that he was consulted in matters of state. [7] According to Veccia Vaglieri, however, while it is probable that Umar asked for Ali's advice on legal issues in view of his excellent knowledge of the Quran and the sunna, it is not certain whether his advice was accepted on political matters. As an example, al-Baladhuri notes that Ali's view on diwani revenue was opposite to that of Umar, as the former believed the whole income should be distributed among Muslims. al-Tabari writes that Ali held the lieutenancy of Madina during Umar's expedition to Syria and Palestine. [8]
Umar was convinced that the Quraysh would not tolerate the combination of the prophethood and the caliphate in Banu Hashim, the clan to which Muhammad and Ali belonged. [9] Early in his caliphate, he confided to Ibn Abbas that Mohammad intended to expressly designate Ali as his successor during his final illness if not prevented by Umar. [10] However, realizing the necessity of Ali's cooperation in his collaborative scheme of governance, Umar made some overtures to Ali and Banu Hashim during his caliphate without giving them excessive economic and political power. [11] He returned Muhammad's estates in Medina to Ali and Muhammad's uncle, Abbas, though Fadak and Khayber remained as state property under Umar's control. [12] Umar also insisted on marrying Ali's daughter, Umm Kulthum, to which Ali reluctantly agreed after the former enlisted public support for his demand. [13]
Umar was stabbed by Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, a Persian slave in 23 AH (644 CE). [14] On his deathbed, Umar tasked a committee of six with choosing the next caliph among themselves. [15] These six men were all all early companions of Muhammad from the Quraysh. [15] Ali and Uthman were the two main candidates in the committee, though it is generally believed that the makeup and configuration of the committee left little possibility for Ali's nomination. [16] [17] [18] Two members, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, were cousins and naturally inclined to support Uthman, who was Ibn Awf's brother-in-law. The tie-breaker vote was given to Ibn Awf, who offered the caliphate to Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Qur'an, the sunna (the prophetic precedence), and the precedents established by the first two caliphs. Ali rejected the third condition while Uthman accepted it. It has been suggested that Ibn Awf was aware of Ali's disagreements with the past two caliphs and that he would have inevitably rejected the third condition. [19] [20] [21] Albertatiran ( talk) 15:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page). In this edit that was made to the article on Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, an editor changed the family name of an author:
Ruhı Fığlalı
R.Fığlalı
Note that the editor changed the family name. The author's first name was listed as Ethem
. There is an article on Wikipedia about this author:
tr:Ethem Ruhi Fığlalı (
Google translation from Turkish). The Wikipedia article suggests that the family name was Fığlalı
and that the author's first names were Ethem Ruhi
. As for whether the last letter of Ruhi should be the conventional Latin script "i" or the mysterious "ı" character:
Islamansiklopedisi.org.tr and Turkish Wikipedia support the Latin script "i".
I will correct the author's names on the basis that Turkish Wikipedia is correct.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The circumstances around Ali's accession to the caliphate have been intensely debated but there is hardly any room in Ali#Election or in Caliphate_of_Ali#Election to summarize the recent research. As for the precedents, there already exist Election of Uthman about Uthman and Saqifa about Abu Bakr.
The proposal is to create a new article entitled "Election of Ali," the draft of which can be found in Draft:Election_of_Ali. This submission was declined (rather than reviewed and rejected) on August 31 and the protocol seems to require a consensus here to back the new article. (It doesn't seem that this spin-off article would qualify under the "special notability guide.") Your input is welcome below: do you support the creation of this new article? Thanks! Albertatiran ( talk) 08:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I support. This is good article but I think title "Election of Ali" better change to "Election of Ali for caliph" because for Ali there is also the being elected as imam And the successor of the Prophet from shia view. And it's better we have summary of election of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman And the point he could be the next caliph in the council of six. M.Nadian ( talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, everyone! Thanks for the support. Election of Ali to the caliphate is now live after some edits to address your comments. More work is needed though to address all the comments and hopefully, I'd be able to revise this article in the near future. Albertatiran ( talk) 11:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Kindly don't change it Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Write more about how the sunnis were not following the prophet by not following Ali and he is a Imam 24.5.35.81 ( talk) 16:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Definitely they're not following instructions of prophet Muhammad saw. Prophet said I leave you two weighty things, if you stick to both you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah and my progeny they ignore the Hadith and follow the self made caliphs Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want reference I'll provide you Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
He whose mawla I am, Ali is his mawla ( master ) Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of the introduction, could the word "companion" be linked to Companions of the Prophet? Thanks. 175.39.61.121 ( talk) 07:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Converted 20 January 0662 CE to Hijri Date sunday, 21 Ramadhan 41 114.76.168.60 ( talk) 14:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Sindhi Jats too fought for Ali
reliable source here- https://archive.org/details/religion-and-society-in-arab-sind/mode/2up
Please add this info Virk0001 ( talk) 16:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Salam @ Albertatiran: Can you explain why "Muhammad asked his followers whether he was not closer..." was removed in this edit? thanks. Mhhossein talk 06:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Photo Imam_Ali_bin_abi_Talib_(as) 37.237.61.18 ( talk) 17:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction it says Ali was killed on orders of Muaviyah. This is incorrect. Please see the detailed section about Ali's Death. It is correctly mentioned that he was killed by Ibn Muljim. This page is heavily modified to lean towards Shia Ideology which only represents 10% of entire Muslim population. 2405:201:5501:D01C:387A:A38C:810F:1DD1 ( talk) 03:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
You can use this "Ali was assassinated at the age of 62 or 63 by a Kharijite, ibn Muljam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.246.22 ( talk) 11:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The first of the two arbitration meetings took place in February or March 658, according to Ali#Arbitration. The second meeting happened later but was not recognized by Ali and shouldn't be counted as part of the arbitration. On the other hand, the Battle of Nahrawan took place in July 658, according to Battle of Nahrawan. So it seems reasonable to reverse the order of Ali#Arbitration and Ali#Battle_of_Nahrawan in keeping with the chronological order. After that, it'd also perhaps make sense to change Ali#Advent_of_Kharijites and Ali#Arbitration into subsections of Ali#Battle of Siffin. Unless there are any objections, I plan to make these changes when revising Ali#Battle of Siffin in the coming days. Albertatiran ( talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 19:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“change Quraysh (Banu Hashim) to Ahl Al-Bayt” Omomani1 ( talk) 02:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in titles also include his title Yad-ul-lah meaning hand of Allah/ hand of god reference Hayat al qulub vol 3 by Mohammad Baqir majlisi [1] 39.51.203.60 ( talk) 02:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
References
In the Islamic family there was controversy among historians about the relationship between Ali and Uthman. According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr Ali recognized Uthman as the caliph, but had taken a neutral position among his supporters and opponents. Robert M. Gleave believes that Ali was at least spiritually at the forefront of Uthman's opponents; Ali, along with Talha and Zubayr, were among the critics of Uthman; and Ali stated that Uthman had deviated from the Sunnah of the Prophet, especially on the question of religious law which should be meted out in several cases, such as those of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar and Walid ibn Uqba(accused of drinking). Ali also opposed Uthman for changing the prayer ritual, and for declaring that he would take whatever he needed from the fey'. Ali also endeavored to protect companions such as ibn Mas'ud, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (who was exiled from Medina, due to his preaches against the misdeeds of the powerful), and Ammar ibn Yasir from maltreatment by the caliph. According to Madelung, when people revolted against Uthman in some cities and regions and moved to Medina, Uthman asked Ali to speak with them and convince them to return to their cities. Uthman, committing himself to follow Ali's advice from now on, Madelung writes, gave him full authority to negotiate with the insurgents as he wished. According to this report, Ali reminded Uthman that he had talked to him about this before, but he preferred to listen to Marwan ibn Hakam and the Umayyads instead. Uthman accordingly promised that from now on, he would turn away from them and listen to Ali; and ordered other Ansar and Muhajirun to join Ali. He also asked Ammar to join the group, but he rejected the offer. Accordiing to Poonawala Ali had a restraining influence on Uthman at this time without directly opposing him. He conveyed criticisms of the Companions to Uthman, and negotiated on behalf of Uthman with the opposition who had come to Medina; which seems to have caused suspicion between Ali and Uthman's relatives. Later, when the rebels besieged Uthman's house, Ali tried to mitigate the severity of the siege by his insistence that Uthman should be allowed water. When Uthman was in danger of being attacked, Ali sent his sons to protect his house. When Uthman was killed by the insurgents, Ali blamed his sons for inadequate protection of Uthman's house. According to Vaglieri, the rebels asked Ali to be their head, and although he refused and should be excluded from the bloody conclusion of their act, but, Vaglieri says, there are reasons that Ali was in agreement with rebels that Uthman should abdicate. According to Madelung "there is no evidence that Ali entertained close relations with them at this time or directed their actions. But he was certainly aware of them." It is reported from Tabari that Ali tried to detach himself from the besiegers of the house of Uthman and their partisans, as soon as circumstances allowed him. Madelung relates that, years later, Marwan told Zayn al-Abidin, the grandson of Ali, that "No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate toward our master than your master."
Uthman's reign was marked with widespread accusations of nepotism and corruption, [1] [2] [3] [4] and he was ultimately assassinated in 656 by dissatisfied rebels in a raid during the second siege of his residence in Medina. [5] Ali was critical of Uthman's rule, alongside other senior companions, such as Talha. [6] [7] He clashed with Uthman in religious matters, arguing that Uthman had deviated from the sunna (practices of Muhammad), [7] especially regarding the religious punishments (hudud) which should be meted out in several cases, such as those of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar (accused of murder) and Walid ibn Uqba (accused of drinking). [8] [7] [9] Ali also opposed Uthman for changing the prayer ritual, and for declaring that he would take whatever he needed from the fey money. Ali also sought to protect Muhammad's companions such as Ibn Mas'ud, Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, and Jundab ibn Kab al-Azdi, who all faced Uthman's wrath for opposing the caliph. [10] [8] [7] [11] Prior to the rebellion, in 34 AH (654-655 CE), Ali admonished Uthman for his nepotism on behalf of other companions. [12] [11]
During the rebellion, Ali frequently acted as a mediator between the rebels and Uthman. [13] [11] [8] Prior to their first siege in 35 AH (656 CE), [14] he warned the Egyptian rebels about the evil consequences of their advance, unlike other senior companions who urged the rebels to enter Medina. [15] Ali also led the negotiations with the rebels on behalf of Uthman and persuaded the rebels to return home by promising them, in the name of caliph, redress for all their grievances and agreeing to act as guarantor. [16] [11] At the insistence of Ali, Uthman then delivered a public statement of repentance in the mosque, [17] which he later withdrew under the influence of Marwan, his cousin and secretary. [18] As their disagreements mounted, Ali refused to further represent Uthman. [19] Soon after, the Egyptian rebels returned to Medina when they intercepted a messenger of Uthman who was carrying official instructions for the governor of Egypt to punish the dissidents. [20] Marwan is often blamed for this letter rather than Uthman, who maintained his innocence about it. [21] [5] Kufan and Basran rebels also arrived in Medina but they did not participate in the siege, heeding Ali's advice for nonviolence. [22] The second siege soon escalated and Uthman was murdered by the rebels in the final days of 35 AH (June 656). [5] During the second siege, Ali's son, Hasan, was injured while standing guard at Uthman's residence at the request of Ali, [23] [24] and he also mitigated the severity of the siege by ensuring that Uthman was allowed water. [25] [11]
According to Jafri, Ali likely regarded the resistance movement as a front for the just demands of the poor and disenfranchised, [26] though it is generally believed that he did not have any close ties with the rebel. [9] This spiritual rather than political support of Ali for the uprising has been noted by a number of modern historians. [8] [7] [11] Al-Tabari also writes that Ali attempted to detach himself from the besiegers of Uthman's residence as soon as circumstances allowed him. [8] Madelung relates that, years later, Marwan told Zayn al-Abidin, the grandson of Ali, that, "No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate toward our master [Uthman] than your master [Ali]." [27]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertatiran ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Can anyone confirm the authenticity of Ali's supposed signature? The File:Transcription of a Signature Believed To Be Of Ali ibn abi Talib.png. created by
User:Taha b. Wasiq b. Hussain doesn't seem to be confirmed by any
WP:RS.
Hezbollaist (
talk)
12:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
@ Albertatiran: If you want to shorten this article, you shouldn't delete the well sourced long standing information of this article, and replace them with contents from other articles, like what you did here. Instead you should summarize the existing information.
Also I noticed that you deleted some attributions (according to ...), which are needed for controversial contents. You should fix them yourself.
Also when you want to rearrange or clarify a paragraph, you cannot attribute the information of one source to another like what you might have done here.
If you need more information ask the editors who are more experienced like Mhhossein. Ghazaalch ( talk) 15:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@
El C,
Al Ameer son,
Mhhossein,
HistoryofIran,
Toddy1,
ParthikS8,
Sa.vakilian,
Ahendra,
M.Nadian, and
Apaugasma: I would ask you to please look into the edit war started by
Ghazaalch. Without any exceptions, I've improved the flow and writing of the article (e.g.,
[1]), added new sources (e.g.,
[2]), removed udue weight or shortened verbose content (e.g.,
[3]), filled in the gaps within the narrative (e.g.,
[4]), corrected misrperesentations of the source (e.g.,
[5]), removed repeated or rearranged misplaced content (e.g.,
[6]), removed content that didn't exist in the source (like
[7] or
[8]).
Ghazaalch has now reverted the article, even though I had posted my proposed edits on the talk page long ago and waited for feedback before editing the article. Thank you for your help.
Albertatiran (
talk)
16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The point of the reverts was that the long-standing information should be the base of your work not the copy-pasted ones. So I'd prefer to start with the current version. But you can use some of the reverted information which are not problematic. Also you can merge the Advent of Kharijites with one of its adjacent sections, Battle of Siffin or Arbitration. Ghazaalch ( talk) 15:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Salam, Mhhossein, and thanks for the feedback. Here are my thoughts:
References
Excuse me if I am incorrect, but "religius" should be changed to religious in the third sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:fb23:6300:e1aa:87ad:cb6:d8d5 ( talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I am going to work on this article to improve it to a good article. Any suggestion? Ghazaalch ( talk) 18:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian, Mhhossein, Alivardi, and Vice regent: Hello. I have been working on this article for a while and am going to nominate it for a good article. Is there anything I could do before nomination? Ghazaalch ( talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein: Every thing has been changed since 2015. I omitted or replaced all unreliable information and could say that it is a new article now. So I do not think it has the previous issues now. Ghazaalch ( talk) 09:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I changed the contents in the infobox a little bit, but the new information are hidden.(can't be seen by readers) Do you know what is the problem? Ghazaalch ( talk) 09:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mhhossein. The following is hidden now:
|Titles: Amir al-Mu'minin, Abu Turab, Haydar, Asadullah, Al-Murtadha, Abu al-Hasan.
Ghazaalch ( talk) 02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mhhossein. Well done:) Ghazaalch ( talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello AhmadLX. You did a great job reviewing Hasan ibn Ali, which was kind of writing the article from the beginning. I am wondering if you have the time to review this article too? If it is too much, I can start preparing Husayn ibn Ali for review first. Ghazaalch ( talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you AhmadLX. I used the sources you mentioned above, including your translation of Wellhausen's book. I couldn't find THE SIFFIN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT as I mentioned before. Ghazaalch ( talk) 07:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you AhmadLX I cannot reach the Site. Ghazaalch ( talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello AhmadLX. Can you take another look at the article and see if we can nominate it now? Ghazaalch ( talk) 14:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Albertatiran: Thanks to Apaugasma I saw your proposals below in the Caliphat section. The article might have the problems you mentioned but since I am not the reviewer, I'd prefer to listen to those who are more experienced than me and you in this field, like AhmadLX and Sa.vakilian. AhmadLx has already made some suggestions that I tried to address them, except for the Historiography section which still has the problem he mentioned. So as Mhhossein said bellow, the best thing to do right now is to improve this article to a good article. You have already been of good help summarizing this article and you could continue with it as long as you don't change or remove the essential content of it. (I have already summarized it so be careful not to trim it much). You can also work on Historiography section under Ahmad's revision, if you want to help. Ghazaalch ( talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Albertatiran. Do you have the time to improve the Historiography section too, using some other sources and viewpoints? Then we can ask @AhmadLX to review the article and let us know what else should be done. Ghazaalch ( talk) 09:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ghazaalch! What do you have in mind for Historiography? I can see that it's mentioned in the exchanges above but that's also somewhat vague to me. Thanks! Albertatiran ( talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Albertatiran. I think AhmadLX want to say that Madelung's deviation from the academic consensus on the unreliability of hadith literature
has been justified in the third paragraph of the Historiography where it reads: Wilferd Madelung has rejected the stance of indiscriminately dismissing everything not included in "early sources" and in this approach tendentiousness alone is no evidence for late origin. According to him, Caetani's approach is inconsistent. Madelung and some later historians do not reject the narrations which have been compiled in later periods and try to judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures.[195]
.
I think AhmadLX want to say that Madelung's view has been given too much weight and it should be balanced using some other sources and viewpoints.
AhmadLX himself might want to clarify a little or introduce some other sources for this purpose.
Ghazaalch (
talk)
17:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
By the way, AhmadLx has been of great help reviewing Hasan ibn Ali, until I could nominate it. Battle of Karbala is another article that has been improved to a Good article by AhmadLX and could be good example for our work here. Ghazaalch ( talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma, Mhhossein, Al Ameer son, HistoryofIran, Ghazaalch, Toddy1, AhmadLX, Vice regent, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, and M.Nadian: Hi! I'd like to gauge your views about the following minor changes to Death and Burial. If unopposed, I'd hope to implement them by next Friday. Thank you in advance! Albertatiran ( talk) 08:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
After consulting the given source (Veccia Vaglieri's Ibn Muldjam article), a couple of sentences in this section can be improved in my view.
CURRENT: According to some narrations Ali knew, or had been informed by Muhammad that his beard would stain with the blood of his forehead. It is mainly emphasized in Shia sources that Ali, despite being aware of his fate, and in spite of knowing that ibn Muljam would be his killer, did not take any action against ibn Muljam becaus he could not kill someone who has not killed him yet.
PROPOSED: According to some narrations, Ali had long known about his fate, either by his own premonition or through Muhammad, who had told Ali that his beard would be stained with the blood of his head. It is emphasized mainly in Shia sources that Ali, despite being aware of his fate at the hands of Ibn Muljam, did not take any action against him because, in Ali's words, "Would you kill one who has not yet killed me?" Albertatiran ( talk) 08:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't see much difference between these two paragraphs. M.Nadian ( talk) 10:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems that the proposal (largely correcting the English and copy editing and adding new bits of info from the source) is seen as uncontroversial. I've implemneted the proposed edits and did some more copy editing on this section. Albertatiran ( talk) 08:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Recently, Ishan87 has begun going over my recent contributions on Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation, e.g., my recent edits discussed in Talk:Ali#Proposed_changes_to_Death_and_Burial. This can be traced back to a dispute Talk:Muhammad's children (which makes for an interesting read). Albertatiran ( talk) 19:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
False accusations. As I explained in the other talk page. I did gave explanations and valid reasons to change your edits, and none of them had anything to do with your actions in any other pages. Ishan87 ( talk) 19:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Ishan87, what is your problem with this edit? Are you see the "Proposed changes to Death and Burial" or not? M.Nadian ( talk) 06:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Ali's appearance is described as being bald, heavy built, short legged, with broad shoulders, a hairy body, a long white beard; and affected by a form of eye inflammation. In manner, it is said that he was rough, brusque, and unsociable."
This line needs changing as its portraying a false image of a man who was described to be handsome, gentle,generous, compassionate,pure, one who emanated wisdom, faith and valor,. A man raised by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a man who was the spiritual successor of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Ali Ibn Abu Talib is a man who's even spoken by the United nationn.
UN Secretariat, the Committee of Human Rights in New York under the chairmanship of the Secretary General Kofi Annan issued, in 2002 A.D., this historic resolution:
The Caliph Ali Bin Abi Talib is considered the fairest governor who appeared during human history (After the Prophet Muhammed). The United Nations has advised Arab countries to take Imam Ali bin Abi Talib as an example in establishing a regime based on justice and democracy and encouraging knowledge.
^ This was stated by the United Nations, someone clearly wants to bring about a negative image of Caliph Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib, some people in the muslim world try there level best to undervalue this holy figure. SHG98 ( talk) 23:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Ghazaalch: Hi! Ali#Succession_to_Muhammad currently offers a good in-depth analysis of the Saqifah event and its aftermath but is almost void of any historical details. I've added this analysis to Succession_to_Muhammad#Saqifah where an in-depth analysis like this seems more appropriate. Instead, the text below summarizes (most of) the existing analysis and adds a short account of the Saqifah from standard sources. Are you ok with me replacing the current text with the proposal below? Albertatiran ( talk) 08:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
While Ali was preparing Muhammad's body for burial, [1] a group of the Ansar (Medinan natives, lit. 'helpers') gathered at Saqifah with the deliberate exclusion of the Muhajirun ( lit. 'migrants'), possibly with the intention of regaining control over their city after Muhammad's death, as suggested by Madelung. [2] Upon learning about this, Abu Bakr and Umar, both senior companions of Muhammad, rushed to join the gathering and were likely the only representatives of the Muhajirun at Saqifah, alongside Abu Ubaidah. [3] Those present at Saqifah appointed Abu Bakr as Muhammad's successor after a heated debate that is said to have become violent. [4]
There is some evidence that the case of Ali for the caliphate was brought up at Saqifah [5] and Madelung partly attributes the so-called falta ( lit. 'hasty decision') at Saqifah to the very fear that the Ansar might decide to rally behind his case. [6] According to Madelung, Abu Bakr was well aware that a broad council ( shura), in which Ali was to be an option, would have led to the election of Ali: [7] The Ansar would have likely supported Ali because of his family ties with them, and the same arguments that favored Abu Bakr over the Ansar (kinship, service to Islam, etc.) would have arguably favored Ali over Abu Bakr. [8] Madelung suggests that the straightforward logic of dynastic succession would have prevailed in a general shura. [9] Veccia Vaglieri, on the other hand, believes that Ali, just over thirty years old at the time, stood no chance in view of Arabs' (pre-Islamic) tradition of choosing their leaders from the elders. [10]
After Saqifah, Omar reportedly dominated the streets of Medina with the help of the Aslam and Aws tribes, [11] and the caliphate of Abu Bakr was met with little resistance. [12] Ali and his supporters, however, initially refused to acknowledge Abu Bakr's authority, claiming that Muhammad had earlier designated him as the successor. [13] There are Sunni and Shia reports that Umar led an armed mob to Ali's house to secure his pledge, which led to a violent confrontation. [14] To force Ali into line, Abu Bakr later placed a boycott on Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hashim, [15] which gradually led Ali's supporters to accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr. [16]
For his part, Ali is said to have turned down proposals to forcefully pursue his claims to the caliphate, [17] including one from Abu Sufyan. [18] Ali is also known to have prevented the circulation of a poem that advanced Ali's claim to the caliphate, commenting that the welfare of Islam was dearer to him than anything else. [19] Some six months after Muhammad's death, Ali pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr when his wife, Fatima, died. [20] Shia alleges that her death was a result of the injuries suffered in an earlier violent attack on Ali's house led by Omar. [21] It has been suggested that Ali relinquished his claims to the caliphate for the sake of the unity of Islam, when it became clear that Muslims did not broadly support his cause. [22] Nevertheless, according to Madelung, Ali unequivocally viewed himself as the most qualified person to lead after Muhammad by virtue of his merits and his kinship with Muhammad. [23] Mavani adds that Ali considered himself as the designated successor to Muhammad through a divine decree at the Event of the Ghadir Khumm. [24]
The conflicts after the death of Muhammad are considered the roots of the current division among Muslims. [25] Those who had accepted Abu Bakr's caliphate later became the Sunni, while the supporters of Ali's right to the caliphate eventually became the Shia. [26]
Hello Albertatiran. It is difficult to decide. The first paragraph of your proposed text presents a detailed view of Madelung about the possibly intention of Ansar which is not necessary, especially when it is not clear how a group of Ansar were dominated by three of Muhajirun. So we would need more explanation and more details here which is too much for this article. Therefore the existing information of the article is better and more summarized in my view. The information of the first part of the second paragraph again seems to be the especial view of Madelung and is not so famous to be mentioned in this article. The same thing can be said about the poem that advanced Ali's claim, etc. In the forth paragraph you wrote "according to Madelung, Ali unequivocally viewed himself as the most qualified...", while the sources you presented for the sentence show that it is not the view of Madelung alone. It is according to Madelung, Momen, Mavani and maybe some others. In the existing article we read "Madelung considers the main Shia claims, to be Ali's own view, because Ali considered himself ...", which seems more correct. Again you wrote "Mavani adds that Ali considered himself ....", while it is not the view of Mavani alone. Ghazaalch ( talk) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Ansar would have supported the caliphate of Ali because of his family ties with them, because as far as I know Ali had no family ties with Ansar. Ghazaalch ( talk) 10:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Ghazaalch: Could you also help me with your feedback on this section? (Of course, everyone is also welcome to join the discussion.) The current text is repeated below for convenience.
At the beginning of Abu Bakr's caliphate, there was a controversy about Muhammad's endowment to his daughter, especially the oasis of Fadak, between Fatima and Ali on one side and Abu Bakr on the other side. Fatima asked Abu Bakr to turn over their property, the lands of Fadak and Khaybar, but Abu Bakr refused and told her that "The Messenger of God has said: We do not have heirs, whatever we leave is alms." Fatima became angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died. [1] According to a narration by ibn Sa'd, Ali countered Abu Bakr by quoting some verses of the Qur'an, according which "Solomon became David's heir" (Qur'an 27:16) and "Zachariah said [in his prayer: give me a next-of-kin] who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob". (Qur'an 19:6). [a] [2] According to some sources, Ali did not give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until some time after the death of his wife, Fatima, in the year 633. [3] According to Tabari, a group of Abu Bakr's opponents, including Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, gathered at Fatima's house. To make them come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar threatened to set the house on fire and pulled them out. [4] While al-Baladhuri states that the altercation never became violent and ended with Ali's compliance, [5] some traditions add that Umar and his supporters forcibly entered the house, resulting in Fatima's miscarriage of their unborn son Muhsin. [6] Professor Coeli Fitzpatrick surmises that the story of the altercation reflects the political agendas of the period and should therefore be treated with caution. [7]
Ali lived an isolated life during Abu Bakr's period and was mainly engaged in religious affairs, devoting himself to studying and teaching the Quran. He also advised Abu Bakr and Umar on government matters. [8] According to Ismail Poonawala, the first historically compiled Quran is attributed to Ali. Ali's knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah would help the previous caliphs in religious matters. [3] [9] The order of Qur'an, compiled be Ali, reportedly differed from that which was gathered later during the Uthmanic era. This book was rejected by several people when he showed it to them. Despite this, Ali made no resistance against the standardised mus'haf. [10]
A couple of comments about it:
With these comments in mind, here is the revised text that rewords and expands the current text in some places. Please let me know what your comments (if any) are. Thanks! Albertatiran ( talk) 08:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The beginning of Abu Bakr's caliphate was marked by controversy surrounding Muhammad's land endowments to his daughter, Fatima, the wife of Ali. [6] She requested Abu Bakr to return her property, the lands of Fadak and her share in Khaybar, which Abu Bakr refused, saying that Muhammad had told him, "We [the prophets] do not have heirs, whatever we leave is alms." [11] After this exchange, Fatima is said to have remained angry with Abu Bakr until her death, within a few months of Muhammad's death. [12] [13] Abu Bakr was initially the sole witness to this statement, which later became known as the hadith of Muhammad's inheritance. [14] [15] [16] In effect, Abu Bakr's decree disinherited Muhammad's family and brought them to rely on general alms which Muhammad had forbidden for them in his lifetime. [17] In connection to this dispute, Ibn Sa'd relates that Ali countered Abu Bakr's claim by quoting parts of verse 27:16 of the Qur'an, " Solomon became David's heir," and verse 19:6, "Zechariah said [in his prayer: grant me a next-of-kin] who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob." [18] Explaining this ostensible conflict between the Qur'an and Abu Bakr's hadith presented a challenge for Sunni authors. [19]
The death of Fatima, the wife of Ali, was another controversial incident in this period. There is strong evidence that shortly after the appointment of Abu Bakr as caliph, Umar led an armed mob to Ali's house and threatened to set it on fire if Ali and the supporters of his caliphate, who had gathered there in solidarity, would not pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr. [20] [21] [6] [22] The scene soon grew violent and, in particular, Zubayr was disarmed and carried away. [20] [23] The armed mob later retreated after Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, loudly admonished them. [21] [24] It is widely believed that Ali withheld his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until after the death of Fatima, within six months of Muhammad's death. [25] [26] In particular, Shia and some early Sunni sources allege a final and more violent raid to secure Ali's oath, also led by Umar, in which Fatima suffered injuries that shortly led to her miscarriage and death. [6] [27] [28] In contrast, the Sunni historian al-Baladhuri writes that the altercations never became violent and ended with Ali's compliance. [5] Fitzpatrick surmises that the story of the altercation reflects the political agendas of the period and should therefore be treated with caution. [7] Veccia Vaglieri, however, maintains that the Shia account is based on facts, even if it has been later extended by invented details. [29]
In sharp contrast with Muhammad's lifetime, [13] [30] Ali retired from the public life during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (and later, Umar and Uthman) and mainly engaged himself with religious affairs, devoting his time to the study and teaching of the Quran. [31] This change in Ali's attitude has been described as a silent censure of the first three caliphs. [13] Ali is said to have advised Abu Bakr and Umar on government and religious matters, [31] [26] [9] though the mutual distrust and personal animosity of Ali with Abu Bakr and Umar is also well-documented. [32] [33] Their differences were epitomized during the proceedings of the electoral council in 644 where Ali refused to be bound by the precedence of the first two caliphs. [30] [13]
References
Iranica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Some fairly reasonable edits and corrections are proposed below. They are unlikely to be controversial but your feedback is very welcome. The current text appears below for convenience.
Ali retired from public life during Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, however, he accepted their rule and even gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also was consulted in matters of state. [1] According to Vaglieri, however, while it is probable that Umar asked Ali's advice on legal issues, due to his great knowledge of Qur'an and Sunnah, it is not certain whether his advice was accepted on political matters. As an example, al-Baladhuri mentions Ali's view on Diwani revenue, which was opposite to that of Umar. Since, Ali believed the whole income should be distributed, without holding anything in stock. During the Caliphate of Umar (and Uthman) Ali held no position, except, according to Tabari, the lieutenancy of Madina, during Umar's journey to Syria and Palestine. [2] During the caliphate of Umar, Ali claimed Fatima's paternal inheritance again; But Umar's answer was the same as Abu Bakr's. However, Umar agreed to return some of the property of Medina (which was considered part of Fatima's inheritance) to the sons of Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, who represented Banu Hashim; But the property of Fadak and Khybar remained as state property and was not returned to Banu Hashim. [3]
Ali was one of the electoral council to choose the third caliph which was appointed by Umar. Although Ali was one of the two major candidates, the council was inclined against him. Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, who were cousins, were naturally inclined to support Uthman, who was Abdur Rahman's brother-in-law. In addition, Umar gave the deciding vote to Abdur Rahman, who offered the caliphate to Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Qur'an, the Sunnah ( the example set by Muhammad), and the precedents established by the first two caliphs. Ali rejected the third condition while Uthman accepted it. According to ibn Abi al-Hadid's Comments on the Peak of Eloquence, Ali insisted on his prominence there, but most of the electors supported Uthman and Ali was reluctantly urged to accept him. [4]
According to Madelung, Ali could not have hoped to become the caliph after Umar, on the basis of his kinship with Muhammad; Because the Quraysh did not support the accumulation of prophethood and caliphate in one clan. He believes that it was not "Abu Bakr's and Umar's coup" at Saqifah which prevented Ali from becoming caliph, but it stems from the deep jealousy of the Quraysh toward Ali. Therefore, Madelung says, Ali's only chance to participate in the affairs of the Muslims could be his full participation in the council, which was founded by Umar. Ibn Abbas narrates that Umar once told him that Ali was in fact the most worthy person to succeed Muhammad, but we were afraid of him for two reasons. When ibn Abbas eagerly asks Umar about these reasons, Umar replied that the first is his youth and the second is Ali's great interest in the Banu Hashim family. In his address, Umar refers to his belief in the formation of the council as the basis for appointing a caliph, and in practice, from now on, denounces any appointment of a caliph without consultation. Thus, by doing so, the caliphate could not be monopolized by certain clan and belonged to all the Quraysh. [5]
A few comments about the current text above:
What follows is an attempt to address these comments.
Ali remained withdrawn from public affairs during the caliphate of Umar, [6] though Nasr and coauthor write that he was consulted in matters of state. [7] According to Veccia Vaglieri, however, while it is probable that Umar asked for Ali's advice on legal issues in view of his excellent knowledge of the Quran and the sunna, it is not certain whether his advice was accepted on political matters. As an example, al-Baladhuri notes that Ali's view on diwani revenue was opposite to that of Umar, as the former believed the whole income should be distributed among Muslims. al-Tabari writes that Ali held the lieutenancy of Madina during Umar's expedition to Syria and Palestine. [8]
Umar was convinced that the Quraysh would not tolerate the combination of the prophethood and the caliphate in Banu Hashim, the clan to which Muhammad and Ali belonged. [9] Early in his caliphate, he confided to Ibn Abbas that Mohammad intended to expressly designate Ali as his successor during his final illness if not prevented by Umar. [10] However, realizing the necessity of Ali's cooperation in his collaborative scheme of governance, Umar made some overtures to Ali and Banu Hashim during his caliphate without giving them excessive economic and political power. [11] He returned Muhammad's estates in Medina to Ali and Muhammad's uncle, Abbas, though Fadak and Khayber remained as state property under Umar's control. [12] Umar also insisted on marrying Ali's daughter, Umm Kulthum, to which Ali reluctantly agreed after the former enlisted public support for his demand. [13]
Umar was stabbed by Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, a Persian slave in 23 AH (644 CE). [14] On his deathbed, Umar tasked a committee of six with choosing the next caliph among themselves. [15] These six men were all all early companions of Muhammad from the Quraysh. [15] Ali and Uthman were the two main candidates in the committee, though it is generally believed that the makeup and configuration of the committee left little possibility for Ali's nomination. [16] [17] [18] Two members, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, were cousins and naturally inclined to support Uthman, who was Ibn Awf's brother-in-law. The tie-breaker vote was given to Ibn Awf, who offered the caliphate to Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Qur'an, the sunna (the prophetic precedence), and the precedents established by the first two caliphs. Ali rejected the third condition while Uthman accepted it. It has been suggested that Ibn Awf was aware of Ali's disagreements with the past two caliphs and that he would have inevitably rejected the third condition. [19] [20] [21] Albertatiran ( talk) 15:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page). In this edit that was made to the article on Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, an editor changed the family name of an author:
Ruhı Fığlalı
R.Fığlalı
Note that the editor changed the family name. The author's first name was listed as Ethem
. There is an article on Wikipedia about this author:
tr:Ethem Ruhi Fığlalı (
Google translation from Turkish). The Wikipedia article suggests that the family name was Fığlalı
and that the author's first names were Ethem Ruhi
. As for whether the last letter of Ruhi should be the conventional Latin script "i" or the mysterious "ı" character:
Islamansiklopedisi.org.tr and Turkish Wikipedia support the Latin script "i".
I will correct the author's names on the basis that Turkish Wikipedia is correct.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The circumstances around Ali's accession to the caliphate have been intensely debated but there is hardly any room in Ali#Election or in Caliphate_of_Ali#Election to summarize the recent research. As for the precedents, there already exist Election of Uthman about Uthman and Saqifa about Abu Bakr.
The proposal is to create a new article entitled "Election of Ali," the draft of which can be found in Draft:Election_of_Ali. This submission was declined (rather than reviewed and rejected) on August 31 and the protocol seems to require a consensus here to back the new article. (It doesn't seem that this spin-off article would qualify under the "special notability guide.") Your input is welcome below: do you support the creation of this new article? Thanks! Albertatiran ( talk) 08:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I support. This is good article but I think title "Election of Ali" better change to "Election of Ali for caliph" because for Ali there is also the being elected as imam And the successor of the Prophet from shia view. And it's better we have summary of election of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman And the point he could be the next caliph in the council of six. M.Nadian ( talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, everyone! Thanks for the support. Election of Ali to the caliphate is now live after some edits to address your comments. More work is needed though to address all the comments and hopefully, I'd be able to revise this article in the near future. Albertatiran ( talk) 11:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Kindly don't change it Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Write more about how the sunnis were not following the prophet by not following Ali and he is a Imam 24.5.35.81 ( talk) 16:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Definitely they're not following instructions of prophet Muhammad saw. Prophet said I leave you two weighty things, if you stick to both you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah and my progeny they ignore the Hadith and follow the self made caliphs Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want reference I'll provide you Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
He whose mawla I am, Ali is his mawla ( master ) Umarabubakr ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of the introduction, could the word "companion" be linked to Companions of the Prophet? Thanks. 175.39.61.121 ( talk) 07:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Converted 20 January 0662 CE to Hijri Date sunday, 21 Ramadhan 41 114.76.168.60 ( talk) 14:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Sindhi Jats too fought for Ali
reliable source here- https://archive.org/details/religion-and-society-in-arab-sind/mode/2up
Please add this info Virk0001 ( talk) 16:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Salam @ Albertatiran: Can you explain why "Muhammad asked his followers whether he was not closer..." was removed in this edit? thanks. Mhhossein talk 06:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Photo Imam_Ali_bin_abi_Talib_(as) 37.237.61.18 ( talk) 17:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction it says Ali was killed on orders of Muaviyah. This is incorrect. Please see the detailed section about Ali's Death. It is correctly mentioned that he was killed by Ibn Muljim. This page is heavily modified to lean towards Shia Ideology which only represents 10% of entire Muslim population. 2405:201:5501:D01C:387A:A38C:810F:1DD1 ( talk) 03:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
You can use this "Ali was assassinated at the age of 62 or 63 by a Kharijite, ibn Muljam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.246.22 ( talk) 11:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The first of the two arbitration meetings took place in February or March 658, according to Ali#Arbitration. The second meeting happened later but was not recognized by Ali and shouldn't be counted as part of the arbitration. On the other hand, the Battle of Nahrawan took place in July 658, according to Battle of Nahrawan. So it seems reasonable to reverse the order of Ali#Arbitration and Ali#Battle_of_Nahrawan in keeping with the chronological order. After that, it'd also perhaps make sense to change Ali#Advent_of_Kharijites and Ali#Arbitration into subsections of Ali#Battle of Siffin. Unless there are any objections, I plan to make these changes when revising Ali#Battle of Siffin in the coming days. Albertatiran ( talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 19:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“change Quraysh (Banu Hashim) to Ahl Al-Bayt” Omomani1 ( talk) 02:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in titles also include his title Yad-ul-lah meaning hand of Allah/ hand of god reference Hayat al qulub vol 3 by Mohammad Baqir majlisi [1] 39.51.203.60 ( talk) 02:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
References
In the Islamic family there was controversy among historians about the relationship between Ali and Uthman. According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr Ali recognized Uthman as the caliph, but had taken a neutral position among his supporters and opponents. Robert M. Gleave believes that Ali was at least spiritually at the forefront of Uthman's opponents; Ali, along with Talha and Zubayr, were among the critics of Uthman; and Ali stated that Uthman had deviated from the Sunnah of the Prophet, especially on the question of religious law which should be meted out in several cases, such as those of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar and Walid ibn Uqba(accused of drinking). Ali also opposed Uthman for changing the prayer ritual, and for declaring that he would take whatever he needed from the fey'. Ali also endeavored to protect companions such as ibn Mas'ud, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (who was exiled from Medina, due to his preaches against the misdeeds of the powerful), and Ammar ibn Yasir from maltreatment by the caliph. According to Madelung, when people revolted against Uthman in some cities and regions and moved to Medina, Uthman asked Ali to speak with them and convince them to return to their cities. Uthman, committing himself to follow Ali's advice from now on, Madelung writes, gave him full authority to negotiate with the insurgents as he wished. According to this report, Ali reminded Uthman that he had talked to him about this before, but he preferred to listen to Marwan ibn Hakam and the Umayyads instead. Uthman accordingly promised that from now on, he would turn away from them and listen to Ali; and ordered other Ansar and Muhajirun to join Ali. He also asked Ammar to join the group, but he rejected the offer. Accordiing to Poonawala Ali had a restraining influence on Uthman at this time without directly opposing him. He conveyed criticisms of the Companions to Uthman, and negotiated on behalf of Uthman with the opposition who had come to Medina; which seems to have caused suspicion between Ali and Uthman's relatives. Later, when the rebels besieged Uthman's house, Ali tried to mitigate the severity of the siege by his insistence that Uthman should be allowed water. When Uthman was in danger of being attacked, Ali sent his sons to protect his house. When Uthman was killed by the insurgents, Ali blamed his sons for inadequate protection of Uthman's house. According to Vaglieri, the rebels asked Ali to be their head, and although he refused and should be excluded from the bloody conclusion of their act, but, Vaglieri says, there are reasons that Ali was in agreement with rebels that Uthman should abdicate. According to Madelung "there is no evidence that Ali entertained close relations with them at this time or directed their actions. But he was certainly aware of them." It is reported from Tabari that Ali tried to detach himself from the besiegers of the house of Uthman and their partisans, as soon as circumstances allowed him. Madelung relates that, years later, Marwan told Zayn al-Abidin, the grandson of Ali, that "No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate toward our master than your master."
Uthman's reign was marked with widespread accusations of nepotism and corruption, [1] [2] [3] [4] and he was ultimately assassinated in 656 by dissatisfied rebels in a raid during the second siege of his residence in Medina. [5] Ali was critical of Uthman's rule, alongside other senior companions, such as Talha. [6] [7] He clashed with Uthman in religious matters, arguing that Uthman had deviated from the sunna (practices of Muhammad), [7] especially regarding the religious punishments (hudud) which should be meted out in several cases, such as those of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar (accused of murder) and Walid ibn Uqba (accused of drinking). [8] [7] [9] Ali also opposed Uthman for changing the prayer ritual, and for declaring that he would take whatever he needed from the fey money. Ali also sought to protect Muhammad's companions such as Ibn Mas'ud, Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, and Jundab ibn Kab al-Azdi, who all faced Uthman's wrath for opposing the caliph. [10] [8] [7] [11] Prior to the rebellion, in 34 AH (654-655 CE), Ali admonished Uthman for his nepotism on behalf of other companions. [12] [11]
During the rebellion, Ali frequently acted as a mediator between the rebels and Uthman. [13] [11] [8] Prior to their first siege in 35 AH (656 CE), [14] he warned the Egyptian rebels about the evil consequences of their advance, unlike other senior companions who urged the rebels to enter Medina. [15] Ali also led the negotiations with the rebels on behalf of Uthman and persuaded the rebels to return home by promising them, in the name of caliph, redress for all their grievances and agreeing to act as guarantor. [16] [11] At the insistence of Ali, Uthman then delivered a public statement of repentance in the mosque, [17] which he later withdrew under the influence of Marwan, his cousin and secretary. [18] As their disagreements mounted, Ali refused to further represent Uthman. [19] Soon after, the Egyptian rebels returned to Medina when they intercepted a messenger of Uthman who was carrying official instructions for the governor of Egypt to punish the dissidents. [20] Marwan is often blamed for this letter rather than Uthman, who maintained his innocence about it. [21] [5] Kufan and Basran rebels also arrived in Medina but they did not participate in the siege, heeding Ali's advice for nonviolence. [22] The second siege soon escalated and Uthman was murdered by the rebels in the final days of 35 AH (June 656). [5] During the second siege, Ali's son, Hasan, was injured while standing guard at Uthman's residence at the request of Ali, [23] [24] and he also mitigated the severity of the siege by ensuring that Uthman was allowed water. [25] [11]
According to Jafri, Ali likely regarded the resistance movement as a front for the just demands of the poor and disenfranchised, [26] though it is generally believed that he did not have any close ties with the rebel. [9] This spiritual rather than political support of Ali for the uprising has been noted by a number of modern historians. [8] [7] [11] Al-Tabari also writes that Ali attempted to detach himself from the besiegers of Uthman's residence as soon as circumstances allowed him. [8] Madelung relates that, years later, Marwan told Zayn al-Abidin, the grandson of Ali, that, "No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate toward our master [Uthman] than your master [Ali]." [27]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertatiran ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Can anyone confirm the authenticity of Ali's supposed signature? The File:Transcription of a Signature Believed To Be Of Ali ibn abi Talib.png. created by
User:Taha b. Wasiq b. Hussain doesn't seem to be confirmed by any
WP:RS.
Hezbollaist (
talk)
12:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).